Retributive justice

Retributive justice is a theory of punishment that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that he or she suffer in return. It also requires that the response to a crime is proportional to the offence. Prevention of future crimes (deterrence) or rehabilitation of the offender are other purposes of punishment. Retribution is different from revenge because retributive justice is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal and involves no pleasure at the suffering of others and employs procedural standards. Classical texts advocating the retributive view include De Legibus (1st century BC), Kant's Science of Right (1790), and Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1821). The concept is found in most world cultures and in many ancient texts. The presence of retributive justice in ancient Jewish culture is shown by its inclusion in the law of Moses, which includes the punishments of 'life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot'. Very similar phrasing is found in the Code of Hammurabi. Documents assert similar values in other cultures. However, the judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly across cultures and individuals. One purpose of official retribution is to channel the retributive sentiments of the public into the political and legal systems. The intent is to deter people from resorting to lynchings, blood feuds, and other ugly forms of vigilante self-help. Another purpose is to promote societal solidarity through participation in the act of punishing, under the theory that 'the society that slays together stays together.' Another purpose is to prevent a situation in which a citizen who would have preferred to obey the law as part of his civic responsibility decides that he would be a fool to not violate it, when so many others are getting away with lawlessness that the point of his obedience is mostly defeated. In the early period of all systems of code, retribution for wrongs took precedence over the enforcement of rights. A rough sense of justice demanded that a criminal should be punished with the infliction of proportionate loss and pain as he inflicted on his victim. Therefore, 'lex talionis' (an eye for an eye) was very prominent in ancient law. The Bible is no exception: in its oldest form it too included the 'lex talionis', the law of 'measure for measure' (this is only the literal translation of middah ke-neged middah). In the 19th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in Metaphysics of Morals, §49 E., that retribution is the only legitimate form of punishment the court can prescribe. He said that, 'Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime.' Kant regarded punishment as a matter of justice, which must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim. He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done and if justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined. One of the reasons for the abandonment of retribution by 20th century reformers was that they gave up on the idea of personal autonomy, since they believed science had discredited it.